Handling of LWSP in tts:fontFamily

[nigelmegitt]

See w3c/imsc#221 and w3c/ttml2#315 for background.

Whether or not LWSP is permitted around comma delimiters in tts:fontFamily is ambiguous. There is evidence that some documents include such spaces, whereas some processors may not accept them. For example one test case (fontFamily009.ttml) in the TTML1 test suite includes such spaces.

Proposed resolutions:

1. Prohibit LWSP in document instances but note that processors should be tolerant of them due to existing content that may include them.
2. Permit LWSP in document instances but note that some existing processors may not be tolerant of them.

[nigelmegitt]

Add a +1 reaction to this issue if you prefer:

1. Prohibit LWSP in document instances but note that processors should be tolerant of them due to existing content that may include them.

[nigelmegitt]

Add a +1 reaction to this issue if you prefer:

2. Permit LWSP in document instances but note that some existing processors may not be tolerant of them.

[css-meeting-bot]

The Working Group just discussed Handling of LWSP in tts:fontFamily ttml1#248, and agreed to the following resolutions:

• RESOLUTION: Group approves merge of this pull request as at 186591d

The full IRC log of that discussion

<nigel> Topic: Handling of LWSP in tts:fontFamily ttml1#248
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/248
<nigel> -> https://github.com//pull/290 State that LWSPs are permitted in tts:fontFamily Pull Request #290
<nigel> Pierre: Based on the result of the long conversation and survey I implemented the preferred
<nigel> .. view. Glenn has objected to it.
<nigel> Glenn: There's new information - there is no known implementation that is affected.
<nigel> .. Ignoring the process issues, I have no problem with the disrecommendation but the
<cyril> q+
<nigel> .. rationale is lame, and we should not add rationales in at all - certainly not in this note.
<nigel> .. If someone could point out an implementation then I would change my opinion.
<nigel> Pierre: The proposed text was on the issue and you approved it back then Glenn.
<nigel> Glenn: That's irrelevant.
<nigel> ack cyril
<nigel> Cyril: I agree with Glenn that the rationale part is not helpful.
<nigel> Andreas: I disagree with both of you. It is incomplete if you do not explain why the recommendation
<nigel> .. is present.
<nigel> Pierre: From a process perspective we have to move forward with the resolution we agreed.
<nigel> Glenn: What was added in the pull request is not what was in the issue.
<nigel> Pierre: That is a good point, I don't know why I used the phrase "maximal compatibility".
<nigel> Glenn: I might accept a new sentence saying something about existing processors.
<nigel> Pierre: I can edit this here and now while we have everyone who cares about it.
<nigel> .. [edits with input from the group]
<nigel> .. [pushes updated text]
<nigel> Glenn: I approved this.
<nigel> Andreas: I already approved too.
<nigel> Pierre: Thank you so much, apologies for the confusion.
<nigel> RESOLUTION: Group approves merge of this pull request as at 186591d